aseprite_statusCheck the Aseprite connection and retrieve active sprite details: size, color mode, layers, frames, and active layer or frame. Coordinates originate at the top-left corner.
Checks the connection and returns info about the active sprite: size, color mode, layers, frames, active layer/frame. Coordinates start at (0,0) in the top-left corner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful context: it checks the connection and defines the coordinate origin as (0,0) top-left. This goes beyond the annotation, though exact return structure and failure behavior are not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The coordinate-system note is brief and useful context rather than noise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only status tool, the description is complete: it identifies connection semantics, the active-sprite target, the returned fields, and the coordinate convention. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('active sprite') and enumerates the returned info: size, color mode, layers, frames, active layer/frame. This clearly describes the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the similar read-only sibling aseprite_view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used to verify the connection and inspect the active sprite, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus siblings like aseprite_view or aseprite_history. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.